Search form

You are here

Since last September or so I has been on a quest to discover what I think defines D&D. Like it or not Paizo has done reasonably well for themselves probably based on using a popular rules set and fantastic adventures. WoTC has focused on rules bloat type books primarily directed towards players in both 3rd and 4th ed. This business strategy did make sense based on the knowledge they acquired from TSR in the late 90's. TSR in the 90's focused on settings and fluff type bloat and in effect they split their own market. For example a Planescape adventure was really only of use to Planescape players and this was compounded by Planescape being sold as a loss leader in theory being able to sell later supplements at a profit. That is the reason why boxed sets became extinct or limited to expensive 3rd party specials from 2000 on wards.

However there is another business theory for D&D that Lisa Stevens at Paizo has subscribed to. Jason Goodman researched a hypothetical D&D book based on the history of the game and he came the following conclusion. D&D has had two massive peaks in its popularity and several erm dips. The height of D&Ds commercial popularity was the early 80's with the second peak being in 2000 and 2001. Back in the 80's splat books as such were kind of rare in AD&D and D&D (BECMI). Adjusted for inflation this is the only time D&D has made it to around $50 million dollars with 1983 income being between 20-23 million dollars (accounts vary). TSR was not run very well however and by 1985 they were several million in debt and Gygax was forced out. Gygax himself said all that money was coming from adventures. The Keep on the Borderlands apparently sold 1 million copies. So good adventure do actually sell and can make millions of dollars- hence the success of Pathfinder despite the PF rules not being the best and my personal theory of mechanics do not matter (much) the TSR WoTC inherited produced relatively few adventures focusing instead on "story telling" type settings. Also keep in mind at the time White Wolfs World of Darkness was becoming popular and for a long time RPGs more or less meant D&D+ indie type games.

This leads me back to WoTC and the other peak of D&D's popularity which was 2000/2001. This explains why WoTC keeps making new sets of core rule books such as 3.5, 4th ed and Essentials. They seem to want to replicate those glory years all over again. They are like a drug addict trying to recreate that 1st high all over again. I would argue that 2000/2001 was one of those once in a generation things fueled by the relative quality of the d20 system, the OGL ad the fact that D&D had been semi static for decades. People were excited to play 3rd ed because the rules made a lot more sense and I suppose after 23 years or so of very similar somewhat ass backwards rules new is good. New is not so good if you change it every 3-4 years. So for 20 odd years (1989 onwards) D&D has been starved of good quality adventures at least from TSR/WoTC with the few good ones being the exception. The "good" D&D adventures are usually the ones from the early 80s or even the late 70's which are the classics. The Vaut of the Drow, Against the Slavelords, the B series for BECMI (B1-B12), Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil etc. Dungeon Magazine was also a good source for good adventures and not just Paizo era Dungeon as I really like 1st ed Dungoen adventures despite 1st ed being my least favourite out of the pre 4th ed D&Ds. I still like 1st ed a lot I just like BECMI and 2nd ed better.

Now what makes a good adventure? I would argue that a good adventure has 3 elements supported which is combat, exploration and interaction although early D&D adventures are often heavy on the combat they do tend to be a bit more than dungeon hacks. The Isle of Dread for example being exploration based and even a dungeon hack like the Temple of Elemental Evil still has Hommlet, Nulb and the surrounding lands to explore and NPCs to interact with. The exploration element back then was also the World of Greyhawk and Mystara as in effect you were exploring and building the world at the same time. Paizo has copied this approach ad their adventure Paths have been set on Golarion. A great adventure path also has a decent story/plot and ties the adventure to the world. The Serpent Skull AP for example reveals the history of Golarion and the Atzlanti, Skull and Shackles let you be a pirate and is set in The Shackles while Kingmaker lets you explore and settle the River Kingdoms. These are all locations of Golarion the Pathfinder campaign world. The Isle of Dread is officially located around 100 miles south of Karameikos on Mystara which is where a large % of the B series modules is set. With the destruction of FR I switched to Golarion and have used it in AD&D and not just Pathfinder or mined it for information and ideas. The Red Mantis Assassins are now more or less the default assassin on my worlds. A good adventure like The Night Below can be turned into a great adventure like B4 The Lost City or B5 Horror on the Hill or the Kingmaker AP just by how it interacts with the world at large.

The last aspect of a great adventure is the interaction pillar IMHO. This is the roleplaying part and also offers a way to unfold a story. Video games have also been using this idea and I will use Knights of the Old Republic (KoToR) and the Mass Effect series. KoToR is generally regarded as better than KoToR2. Mass Effect 3 was panned because of the way it ended. ME3 did not use Drew Karpyshyn who is an author in the Star Wars expanded universe and he is one of the better ones IMHO. Mass Effect 1 and 2 did. Paizo has done a very good job with tying the interaction pillar into the combat and exploration pillars even in the 3.5 APs such as The Savage Tide and the interaction with the various demon lord in order to defeat Demogorgon. In the Kingmaker AP for example there are NPCs who offer you side quests such as steal a Rocs egg to make an omlette and you are rewarded with a magic item or gold. This ties one of the encounters on the map to the larger story while finding an Elven statue for another NPCs achieves something similar but it also ties the adventure to the history of Golarion so you interact with the NPCs, explore to find the object of your desire and then have to fight a combat (maybe) or sneak to get the required statue.

D&D used to have great adventures, Pathfinder currently has them. To a large extent mechanics do no t matter for me as I will happily play AD&D or Pathfinder (3.75 really) and it is not because of their mechanics those rule systems appeal to me although PF did appeal because it was not 4th ed.. It is because of the adventures, history and feel of them. I prefer the TSR era playstyle and I prefer the Paizo fluff/AP and in an ideal world one should be able to buy a D&D that has quality APs and d20 mechanics but using TSR era play styles and game theory. Some retro clones come close but they often have created new problems. D&DN has to be better than AD&D mechanically while avoiding the pitfalls of 3rd ed and 4th ed (to complex, feels wrong) and it also has to have quality adventures otherwise I'm going to keep buying TSR era adventure PDFs and Paizo APs.

Of course DDN needs good adventures. One, good adventures are more good product that you can make money on. Two, it gives WotC a source of income other than splats and modules so they actually have time for good playtesting to prevent power creep. Three, good adventures appeal to more than just people who play your game; meaning that you can easily steal the plot for another game with just a few tweaks and replacing some monsters. Four, DDN needs good everything because it wants to be the top of the market.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

You really shouldn't speak for others. You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

I agree that we need good adventures. A continous, not too frequent, supply of adventures is a neverending revenue stream that I do not resent at all. I often buy them for reference. I think both Adventure Paths and standalone adventures are good.

Adventures are also the source of shared experience between different gaming groups. The great old-school adventures are still bandied about like water-cooler talk the day after a fine tv episode. "Hey, how did your group handle the Steading of the Hill Giant? How many characters did you lose in Tomb of Horrors?" If D&D is to unite as a community, it will be over shared experiences, not shared mechanics.

Irony: The game really needs a feature I plan on never using in order to both sell well, and reach a wide audience and please them.

Seriously, it seems like 4e craptastic adventures soured a lot of people that may have otherwise enjoyed the game. (Revenge of the Giants, the one I played, was spectacularly bad - enough that I didn't want to go back to the table much).

While I always run homebrew adventures - although it can be said I've pilfered ideas from adventure paths, together with books, movies, other games, video games, etc (a GM is not paid to be original, a GM is paid to be entertaining - wait, we're paid!?) - I think that a really good, interesting series of adventures could only be good for 5e as a whole.

Now, the real trick? Develop adventures that please both the "gritty-grim-dark-traps-everywhere" and the "heroes doing hero things and saving the day!" groups.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Good adventures do something that marketing, word of mouth, nor anything else can do. It brings in players who have significant time restrictions and/or the "Unimaginative" players who don't feel creative enough to craft a narrative to make a campaign work.

These are two groups who are interested in the product, but will likely sit on the sidelines without good adventures.

Another couple of approaches they can also take, which could dramatically increase their revenue...

-Killer dungeons: Most published adventures are story driven. There's room for the Killer Dungeon, the Tomb of Horrors kind, the one that people think should come with a T-shirt "I survived ...". Sometimes, it's just fun to take a party through a dungeon that's designed to TPK you, and see if you can pull it off.

-Book of Lairs - Sometimes, A DM just needs a short fill-in adventure or sidequest. Dungeon magazine used to fill this niche, but since it's now online only, it's problematic. Waiting for someone to go hit the internet and print something out in the middle of a game is inconvienent. Plus, some of us just find .pdf and web-based material to be a pain. There's a reason why E-readers haven't exploded in popularity.

-Alternatively, do the Paizo thing and offer Dungeon/Dragon as a premium print product.

Modules can be great revenue generators. Not only do they generate revenue on their own, but they bring in playgroups that wouldn't otherwise exist, which in turn sells the other books as well.

you know 4e had bad adv modules when orangized play LFR had better content, and LFR is like the rail road system(not that a good DM cant fix but good DMs can fix anything).

so ya i want to see some good adv modules. I would even like to see them try to add madularity to the modules like how to run the same module with optional rules for gritty or super hero play types but befor that the need some good core adv modules.

this is actually why i wish FR was not going to be default setting, i would like them to go the

The exploration element back then was also the World of Greyhawk and Mystara as in effect you were exploring and building the world at the same time.

"Good Adventures is what D&D deserves, but not the adventure we need right now. So we make them. Because our players can take them. Because it not our adventure. a silent homebrew, an untold journey. A D&D Adventure."

But seriously, somebody got to write the adventures to make them, the question is who?So before you say"D&D needs Good Adventures", ask "Who is going to make them?".

Is there somebody who can write good quality adventures for years to come?

Whats your idea of a megadungeon Gatt? I'm thinking The Night Below, maybe Return to the Tomb of Horrors and maybe the original Temple of Elemental Evil.

I'm not familiar with The Night Below (Though I'll now check it out), Return to the Tomb of Horrors definitely classifies, Rappan Athuk is another really good one. I'd say "The World's Largest Dungeon" and "The World's Largest City" are obnoxiously big though.

"Good Adventures is what D&D deserves, but not the adventure we need right now. So we make them. Because our players can take them. Because it not our adventure. a silent homebrew, an untold journey. A D&D Adventure."

But seriously, somebody got to write the adventures to make them, the question is who?So before you say"D&D needs Good Adventures", ask "Who is going to make them?".

Is there somebody who can write good quality adventures for years to come?

Some of the ex TSR authors are active still along woth various people who write for Paizo.

Since last September or so I has been on a quest to discover what I think defines D&D. Like it or not Paizo has done reasonably well for themselves probably based on using a popular rules set and fantastic adventures. WoTC has focused on rules bloat type books primarily directed towards players in both 3rd and 4th ed. This business strategy did make sense based on the knowledge they acquired from TSR in the late 90's. TSR in the 90's focused on settings and fluff type bloat and in effect they split their own market. For example a Planescape adventure was really only of use to Planescape players and this was compounded by Planescape being sold as a loss leader in theory being able to sell later supplements at a profit. That is the reason why boxed sets became extinct or limited to expensive 3rd party specials from 2000 on wards.

However there is another business theory for D&D that Lisa Stevens at Paizo has subscribed to. Jason Goodman researched a hypothetical D&D book based on the history of the game and he came the following conclusion. D&D has had two massive peaks in its popularity and several erm dips. The height of D&Ds commercial popularity was the early 80's with the second peak being in 2000 and 2001. Back in the 80's splat books as such were kind of rare in AD&D and D&D (BECMI). Adjusted for inflation this is the only time D&D has made it to around $50 million dollars with 1983 income being between 20-23 million dollars (accounts vary). TSR was not run very well however and by 1985 they were several million in debt and Gygax was forced out. Gygax himself said all that money was coming from adventures. The Keep on the Borderlands apparently sold 1 million copies. So good adventure do actually sell and can make millions of dollars- hence the success of Pathfinder despite the PF rules not being the best and my personal theory of mechanics do not matter (much) the TSR WoTC inherited produced relatively few adventures focusing instead on "story telling" type settings. Also keep in mind at the time White Wolfs World of Darkness was becoming popular and for a long time RPGs more or less meant D&D+ indie type games.

This leads me back to WoTC and the other peak of D&D's popularity which was 2000/2001. This explains why WoTC keeps making new sets of core rule books such as 3.5, 4th ed and Essentials. They seem to want to replicate those glory years all over again. They are like a drug addict trying to recreate that 1st high all over again. I would argue that 2000/2001 was one of those once in a generation things fueled by the relative quality of the d20 system, the OGL ad the fact that D&D had been semi static for decades. People were excited to play 3rd ed because the rules made a lot more sense and I suppose after 23 years or so of very similar somewhat ass backwards rules new is good. New is not so good if you change it every 3-4 years. So for 20 odd years (1989 onwards) D&D has been starved of good quality adventures at least from TSR/WoTC with the few good ones being the exception. The "good" D&D adventures are usually the ones from the early 80s or even the late 70's which are the classics. The Vaut of the Drow, Against the Slavelords, the B series for BECMI (B1-B12), Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil etc. Dungeon Magazine was also a good source for good adventures and not just Paizo era Dungeon as I really like 1st ed Dungoen adventures despite 1st ed being my least favourite out of the pre 4th ed D&Ds. I still like 1st ed a lot I just like BECMI and 2nd ed better.

Now what makes a good adventure? I would argue that a good adventure has 3 elements supported which is combat, exploration and interaction although early D&D adventures are often heavy on the combat they do tend to be a bit more than dungeon hacks. The Isle of Dread for example being exploration based and even a dungeon hack like the Temple of Elemental Evil still has Hommlet, Nulb and the surrounding lands to explore and NPCs to interact with. The exploration element back then was also the World of Greyhawk and Mystara as in effect you were exploring and building the world at the same time. Paizo has copied this approach ad their adventure Paths have been set on Golarion. A great adventure path also has a decent story/plot and ties the adventure to the world. The Serpent Skull AP for example reveals the history of Golarion and the Atzlanti, Skull and Shackles let you be a pirate and is set in The Shackles while Kingmaker lets you explore and settle the River Kingdoms. These are all locations of Golarion the Pathfinder campaign world. The Isle of Dread is officially located around 100 miles south of Karameikos on Mystara which is where a large % of the B series modules is set. With the destruction of FR I switched to Golarion and have used it in AD&D and not just Pathfinder or mined it for information and ideas. The Red Mantis Assassins are now more or less the default assassin on my worlds. A good adventure like The Night Below can be turned into a great adventure like B4 The Lost City or B5 Horror on the Hill or the Kingmaker AP just by how it interacts with the world at large.

The last aspect of a great adventure is the interaction pillar IMHO. This is the roleplaying part and also offers a way to unfold a story. Video games have also been using this idea and I will use Knights of the Old Republic (KoToR) and the Mass Effect series. KoToR is generally regarded as better than KoToR2. Mass Effect 3 was panned because of the way it ended. ME3 did not use Drew Karpyshyn who is an author in the Star Wars expanded universe and he is one of the better ones IMHO. Mass Effect 1 and 2 did. Paizo has done a very good job with tying the interaction pillar into the combat and exploration pillars even in the 3.5 APs such as The Savage Tide and the interaction with the various demon lord in order to defeat Demogorgon. In the Kingmaker AP for example there are NPCs who offer you side quests such as steal a Rocs egg to make an omlette and you are rewarded with a magic item or gold. This ties one of the encounters on the map to the larger story while finding an Elven statue for another NPCs achieves something similar but it also ties the adventure to the history of Golarion so you interact with the NPCs, explore to find the object of your desire and then have to fight a combat (maybe) or sneak to get the required statue.

D&D used to have great adventures, Pathfinder currently has them. To a large extent mechanics do no t matter for me as I will happily play AD&D or Pathfinder (3.75 really) and it is not because of their mechanics those rule systems appeal to me although PF did appeal because it was not 4th ed.. It is because of the adventures, history and feel of them. I prefer the TSR era playstyle and I prefer the Paizo fluff/AP and in an ideal world one should be able to buy a D&D that has quality APs and d20 mechanics but using TSR era play styles and game theory. Some retro clones come close but they often have created new problems. D&DN has to be better than AD&D mechanically while avoiding the pitfalls of 3rd ed and 4th ed (to complex, feels wrong) and it also has to have quality adventures otherwise I'm going to keep buying TSR era adventure PDFs and Paizo APs.

+1.

Which is why I like 4E so much. I didn't run but a few of the pre-made adventures. I simply made my own and they had all the different elements that you mentioned above. So if you played an official modules and really didn't like it, don't blame it on 4E. Blame it on the module. Some of them were real stinkers...

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

"Good Adventures is what D&D deserves, but not the adventure we need right now. So we make them. Because our players can take them. Because it not our adventure. a silent homebrew, an untold journey. A D&D Adventure."

But seriously, somebody got to write the adventures to make them, the question is who?So before you say"D&D needs Good Adventures", ask "Who is going to make them?".

Is there somebody who can write good quality adventures for years to come?

I can. Never had any complaints from my players...

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

Never bought a single adventure since 1988, and I know no player (DM or slave) around me who buys adventures.It's nice if DDN gives you nice adventures, but from my point of view D&D never needed them.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

Can I suggest that looking for quality adventures also means looking outside the D&D sphere. Look at The Enemy Within campaign for WArhammer, Masks of Nyarlathotep for CoC, The Sky Raiders Trilogy for Traveller, Shadows on the Borderlands for RQ, and others. Get some different ideas into play, rather than just the ones D&D has come up with.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha.

Against the Giants is one of the all time great adventures from 1e. I didn't play the 4e version. What was wrong with the adventure? I might declare this as a prerequisite for future editions. If you can't make the giants work and be fun that's a bad sign.

Revenge of the Giants is (as most of the older 4e adventures until the Halls of Undermountain adventure and Madness at Gardmore Abbey - which are the only 4e advs I can really recommend) an encounter-hopping hack'n'slash module that lacks interaction with interesting NPCs (or doesn't flash those NPCs out enough) and has little to no possibilities of exploration in a living and breathing environment. Talking about fun.

I'm not familiar with the original Against the Giants series (only read Chris Perkins 4e variant in Dungeon mag - which I found much better than the 4e hardcover adv) but I have a hunch that it should have been a lot more fun than the whack-a-giant module of 4e.

So WotC, please: give us those adventures we love! With intrigue, suspense, exploration, interaction, deep NPC motivations, different approaches to overcome obstacles, roleplaying and, yeah, combat too! And I am quite confident that we will get them. Looking forward to Murder in Baldur's Gate.

Since last September or so I has been on a quest to discover what I think defines D&D. Like it or not Paizo has done reasonably well for themselves probably based on using a popular rules set and fantastic adventures. WoTC has focused on rules bloat type books primarily directed towards players in both 3rd and 4th ed. This business strategy did make sense based on the knowledge they acquired from TSR in the late 90's. TSR in the 90's focused on settings and fluff type bloat and in effect they split their own market. For example a Planescape adventure was really only of use to Planescape players and this was compounded by Planescape being sold as a loss leader in theory being able to sell later supplements at a profit. That is the reason why boxed sets became extinct or limited to expensive 3rd party specials from 2000 on wards.

However there is another business theory for D&D that Lisa Stevens at Paizo has subscribed to. Jason Goodman researched a hypothetical D&D book based on the history of the game and he came the following conclusion. D&D has had two massive peaks in its popularity and several erm dips. The height of D&Ds commercial popularity was the early 80's with the second peak being in 2000 and 2001. Back in the 80's splat books as such were kind of rare in AD&D and D&D (BECMI). Adjusted for inflation this is the only time D&D has made it to around $50 million dollars with 1983 income being between 20-23 million dollars (accounts vary). TSR was not run very well however and by 1985 they were several million in debt and Gygax was forced out. Gygax himself said all that money was coming from adventures. The Keep on the Borderlands apparently sold 1 million copies. So good adventure do actually sell and can make millions of dollars- hence the success of Pathfinder despite the PF rules not being the best and my personal theory of mechanics do not matter (much) the TSR WoTC inherited produced relatively few adventures focusing instead on "story telling" type settings. Also keep in mind at the time White Wolfs World of Darkness was becoming popular and for a long time RPGs more or less meant D&D+ indie type games.

This leads me back to WoTC and the other peak of D&D's popularity which was 2000/2001. This explains why WoTC keeps making new sets of core rule books such as 3.5, 4th ed and Essentials. They seem to want to replicate those glory years all over again. They are like a drug addict trying to recreate that 1st high all over again. I would argue that 2000/2001 was one of those once in a generation things fueled by the relative quality of the d20 system, the OGL ad the fact that D&D had been semi static for decades. People were excited to play 3rd ed because the rules made a lot more sense and I suppose after 23 years or so of very similar somewhat ass backwards rules new is good. New is not so good if you change it every 3-4 years. So for 20 odd years (1989 onwards) D&D has been starved of good quality adventures at least from TSR/WoTC with the few good ones being the exception. The "good" D&D adventures are usually the ones from the early 80s or even the late 70's which are the classics. The Vaut of the Drow, Against the Slavelords, the B series for BECMI (B1-B12), Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil etc. Dungeon Magazine was also a good source for good adventures and not just Paizo era Dungeon as I really like 1st ed Dungoen adventures despite 1st ed being my least favourite out of the pre 4th ed D&Ds. I still like 1st ed a lot I just like BECMI and 2nd ed better.

Now what makes a good adventure? I would argue that a good adventure has 3 elements supported which is combat, exploration and interaction although early D&D adventures are often heavy on the combat they do tend to be a bit more than dungeon hacks. The Isle of Dread for example being exploration based and even a dungeon hack like the Temple of Elemental Evil still has Hommlet, Nulb and the surrounding lands to explore and NPCs to interact with. The exploration element back then was also the World of Greyhawk and Mystara as in effect you were exploring and building the world at the same time. Paizo has copied this approach ad their adventure Paths have been set on Golarion. A great adventure path also has a decent story/plot and ties the adventure to the world. The Serpent Skull AP for example reveals the history of Golarion and the Atzlanti, Skull and Shackles let you be a pirate and is set in The Shackles while Kingmaker lets you explore and settle the River Kingdoms. These are all locations of Golarion the Pathfinder campaign world. The Isle of Dread is officially located around 100 miles south of Karameikos on Mystara which is where a large % of the B series modules is set. With the destruction of FR I switched to Golarion and have used it in AD&D and not just Pathfinder or mined it for information and ideas. The Red Mantis Assassins are now more or less the default assassin on my worlds. A good adventure like The Night Below can be turned into a great adventure like B4 The Lost City or B5 Horror on the Hill or the Kingmaker AP just by how it interacts with the world at large.

The last aspect of a great adventure is the interaction pillar IMHO. This is the roleplaying part and also offers a way to unfold a story. Video games have also been using this idea and I will use Knights of the Old Republic (KoToR) and the Mass Effect series. KoToR is generally regarded as better than KoToR2. Mass Effect 3 was panned because of the way it ended. ME3 did not use Drew Karpyshyn who is an author in the Star Wars expanded universe and he is one of the better ones IMHO. Mass Effect 1 and 2 did. Paizo has done a very good job with tying the interaction pillar into the combat and exploration pillars even in the 3.5 APs such as The Savage Tide and the interaction with the various demon lord in order to defeat Demogorgon. In the Kingmaker AP for example there are NPCs who offer you side quests such as steal a Rocs egg to make an omlette and you are rewarded with a magic item or gold. This ties one of the encounters on the map to the larger story while finding an Elven statue for another NPCs achieves something similar but it also ties the adventure to the history of Golarion so you interact with the NPCs, explore to find the object of your desire and then have to fight a combat (maybe) or sneak to get the required statue.

D&D used to have great adventures, Pathfinder currently has them. To a large extent mechanics do no t matter for me as I will happily play AD&D or Pathfinder (3.75 really) and it is not because of their mechanics those rule systems appeal to me although PF did appeal because it was not 4th ed.. It is because of the adventures, history and feel of them. I prefer the TSR era playstyle and I prefer the Paizo fluff/AP and in an ideal world one should be able to buy a D&D that has quality APs and d20 mechanics but using TSR era play styles and game theory. Some retro clones come close but they often have created new problems. D&DN has to be better than AD&D mechanically while avoiding the pitfalls of 3rd ed and 4th ed (to complex, feels wrong) and it also has to have quality adventures otherwise I'm going to keep buying TSR era adventure PDFs and Paizo APs.

Well the 1e against the giants series of modules, is pretty much a hack and slash dungeon, a flavorful one but still a hack and slash dungeon. What gets me is that Dungeons and Dragon's as traditionally supported that style very well. The fact that 4e does not, and I agree it does not, is a flaw in the design. 4e is a version of D&D. If it doesn't support DUNGEONS then can it be and effective version of Dungeons and Dragons

I get that there are plenty of other ways to do an adventure. I'm for variety. But if the very essence of the system doesn't do tradition dungeon quests with traps and puzzles, then I don't think it should take the name D&D. D&D has traditionally been about looting dungeons and slaying monsters. It is called Dungeons and Dragons for a reason.

This bleeds into the issue of campaign settings, but we need variety too. Sandboxes, intrigue, ... different adventures can focus on dfferent pillars of the game, and not all need to be set in the same kind of setting. X4 Master of the Desert Nomads and S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and X1 Isle of Dread were each a departure from the typical faux-European settings D&D has featured in spades. Rather than alienating players who don't wish to depart from the typical, I think it could broaden your audience to those who have never preferred the typical; after all, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Dark Sun are all atypical campaign settings with a rabid fanbase. These go to show D&D can be used to do much more than emulate FR and Greyhawk. S2 White Plume Mountain's whimsical experimentation and variety of scenarios is indicative of the kind of spark that ensures D&D is not chained to the words "typical" or "forgettable".

Since last September or so I has been on a quest to discover what I think defines D&D. Like it or not Paizo has done reasonably well for themselves probably based on using a popular rules set and fantastic adventures. WoTC has focused on rules bloat type books primarily directed towards players in both 3rd and 4th ed. This business strategy did make sense based on the knowledge they acquired from TSR in the late 90's. TSR in the 90's focused on settings and fluff type bloat and in effect they split their own market. For example a Planescape adventure was really only of use to Planescape players and this was compounded by Planescape being sold as a loss leader in theory being able to sell later supplements at a profit. That is the reason why boxed sets became extinct or limited to expensive 3rd party specials from 2000 on wards.

However there is another business theory for D&D that Lisa Stevens at Paizo has subscribed to. Jason Goodman researched a hypothetical D&D book based on the history of the game and he came the following conclusion. D&D has had two massive peaks in its popularity and several erm dips. The height of D&Ds commercial popularity was the early 80's with the second peak being in 2000 and 2001. Back in the 80's splat books as such were kind of rare in AD&D and D&D (BECMI). Adjusted for inflation this is the only time D&D has made it to around $50 million dollars with 1983 income being between 20-23 million dollars (accounts vary). TSR was not run very well however and by 1985 they were several million in debt and Gygax was forced out. Gygax himself said all that money was coming from adventures. The Keep on the Borderlands apparently sold 1 million copies. So good adventure do actually sell and can make millions of dollars- hence the success of Pathfinder despite the PF rules not being the best and my personal theory of mechanics do not matter (much) the TSR WoTC inherited produced relatively few adventures focusing instead on "story telling" type settings. Also keep in mind at the time White Wolfs World of Darkness was becoming popular and for a long time RPGs more or less meant D&D+ indie type games.

This leads me back to WoTC and the other peak of D&D's popularity which was 2000/2001. This explains why WoTC keeps making new sets of core rule books such as 3.5, 4th ed and Essentials. They seem to want to replicate those glory years all over again. They are like a drug addict trying to recreate that 1st high all over again. I would argue that 2000/2001 was one of those once in a generation things fueled by the relative quality of the d20 system, the OGL ad the fact that D&D had been semi static for decades. People were excited to play 3rd ed because the rules made a lot more sense and I suppose after 23 years or so of very similar somewhat ass backwards rules new is good. New is not so good if you change it every 3-4 years. So for 20 odd years (1989 onwards) D&D has been starved of good quality adventures at least from TSR/WoTC with the few good ones being the exception. The "good" D&D adventures are usually the ones from the early 80s or even the late 70's which are the classics. The Vaut of the Drow, Against the Slavelords, the B series for BECMI (B1-B12), Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil etc. Dungeon Magazine was also a good source for good adventures and not just Paizo era Dungeon as I really like 1st ed Dungoen adventures despite 1st ed being my least favourite out of the pre 4th ed D&Ds. I still like 1st ed a lot I just like BECMI and 2nd ed better.

Now what makes a good adventure? I would argue that a good adventure has 3 elements supported which is combat, exploration and interaction although early D&D adventures are often heavy on the combat they do tend to be a bit more than dungeon hacks. The Isle of Dread for example being exploration based and even a dungeon hack like the Temple of Elemental Evil still has Hommlet, Nulb and the surrounding lands to explore and NPCs to interact with. The exploration element back then was also the World of Greyhawk and Mystara as in effect you were exploring and building the world at the same time. Paizo has copied this approach ad their adventure Paths have been set on Golarion. A great adventure path also has a decent story/plot and ties the adventure to the world. The Serpent Skull AP for example reveals the history of Golarion and the Atzlanti, Skull and Shackles let you be a pirate and is set in The Shackles while Kingmaker lets you explore and settle the River Kingdoms. These are all locations of Golarion the Pathfinder campaign world. The Isle of Dread is officially located around 100 miles south of Karameikos on Mystara which is where a large % of the B series modules is set. With the destruction of FR I switched to Golarion and have used it in AD&D and not just Pathfinder or mined it for information and ideas. The Red Mantis Assassins are now more or less the default assassin on my worlds. A good adventure like The Night Below can be turned into a great adventure like B4 The Lost City or B5 Horror on the Hill or the Kingmaker AP just by how it interacts with the world at large.

The last aspect of a great adventure is the interaction pillar IMHO. This is the roleplaying part and also offers a way to unfold a story. Video games have also been using this idea and I will use Knights of the Old Republic (KoToR) and the Mass Effect series. KoToR is generally regarded as better than KoToR2. Mass Effect 3 was panned because of the way it ended. ME3 did not use Drew Karpyshyn who is an author in the Star Wars expanded universe and he is one of the better ones IMHO. Mass Effect 1 and 2 did. Paizo has done a very good job with tying the interaction pillar into the combat and exploration pillars even in the 3.5 APs such as The Savage Tide and the interaction with the various demon lord in order to defeat Demogorgon. In the Kingmaker AP for example there are NPCs who offer you side quests such as steal a Rocs egg to make an omlette and you are rewarded with a magic item or gold. This ties one of the encounters on the map to the larger story while finding an Elven statue for another NPCs achieves something similar but it also ties the adventure to the history of Golarion so you interact with the NPCs, explore to find the object of your desire and then have to fight a combat (maybe) or sneak to get the required statue.

D&D used to have great adventures, Pathfinder currently has them. To a large extent mechanics do no t matter for me as I will happily play AD&D or Pathfinder (3.75 really) and it is not because of their mechanics those rule systems appeal to me although PF did appeal because it was not 4th ed.. It is because of the adventures, history and feel of them. I prefer the TSR era playstyle and I prefer the Paizo fluff/AP and in an ideal world one should be able to buy a D&D that has quality APs and d20 mechanics but using TSR era play styles and game theory. Some retro clones come close but they often have created new problems. D&DN has to be better than AD&D mechanically while avoiding the pitfalls of 3rd ed and 4th ed (to complex, feels wrong) and it also has to have quality adventures otherwise I'm going to keep buying TSR era adventure PDFs and Paizo APs.

+1.

Which is why I like 4E so much.

You like 4th Ed due to published adventures/modules?

No I like it because it has all those elements and makes it easy to insert those elements into the game when I create my own adventures. The 4E modules are bad...

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

Well the 1e against the giants series of modules, is pretty much a hack and slash dungeon, a flavorful one but still a hack and slash dungeon. What gets me is that Dungeons and Dragon's as traditionally supported that style very well. The fact that 4e does not, and I agree it does not, is a flaw in the design. 4e is a version of D&D. If it doesn't support DUNGEONS then can it be and effective version of Dungeons and Dragons

I get that there are plenty of other ways to do an adventure. I'm for variety. But if the very essence of the system doesn't do tradition dungeon quests with traps and puzzles, then I don't think it should take the name D&D. D&D has traditionally been about looting dungeons and slaying monsters. It is called Dungeons and Dragons for a reason.

I'm not sure where you are getting that 4E doesn't support hack n slash. Every edition in the game by virtue of having a combat chapter supports that...

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

Well the 1e against the giants series of modules, is pretty much a hack and slash dungeon, a flavorful one but still a hack and slash dungeon. What gets me is that Dungeons and Dragon's as traditionally supported that style very well. The fact that 4e does not, and I agree it does not, is a flaw in the design. 4e is a version of D&D. If it doesn't support DUNGEONS then can it be and effective version of Dungeons and Dragons

I get that there are plenty of other ways to do an adventure. I'm for variety. But if the very essence of the system doesn't do tradition dungeon quests with traps and puzzles, then I don't think it should take the name D&D. D&D has traditionally been about looting dungeons and slaying monsters. It is called Dungeons and Dragons for a reason.

I'm not sure where you are getting that 4E doesn't support hack n slash. Every edition in the game by virtue of having a combat chapter supports that...

Well the 1e against the giants series of modules, is pretty much a hack and slash dungeon, a flavorful one but still a hack and slash dungeon. What gets me is that Dungeons and Dragon's as traditionally supported that style very well. The fact that 4e does not, and I agree it does not, is a flaw in the design. 4e is a version of D&D. If it doesn't support DUNGEONS then can it be and effective version of Dungeons and Dragons

I get that there are plenty of other ways to do an adventure. I'm for variety. But if the very essence of the system doesn't do tradition dungeon quests with traps and puzzles, then I don't think it should take the name D&D. D&D has traditionally been about looting dungeons and slaying monsters. It is called Dungeons and Dragons for a reason.

I'm not sure where you are getting that 4E doesn't support hack n slash. Every edition in the game by virtue of having a combat chapter supports that...

Healing surges also make exploration based games difficult requiring an element of system mastery to get right IMHO.

What is a dungeon crawl other than entering the dungeon, hack n slashing the denizens inside, and then leaving with their treasure?

There isn't much more there. 4E does that fine.

I think there is another problem that you guys have with 4E that is being generalized as that.

If I can take a stab at it, I'd say that you like visibly seeing characters resources dwindle over time and that with hit points being broken into current, full, and surges you aren't seeing it even though it is there.

For instance what is the difference between a 3.5E 4th level Wizard being at 5 hit points out of 10 and a 4E 4th level Wizard being at 36 out of 36 hit points with 1 healing surges left out of 6?

That's right no difference at all. They are both at half total hit points for the day. But 4E makes it look like they are more full to you and that bugs you right?

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

I was responding to the fact that someone hated against the giants for 4e. I haven't played that module in 4e. I did play it in 1e. It was mostly hack and slash. Flavorful and fun but still basically hack and slash. Then a few other people chimned in and said other modules that seem hack in slash to me were no good in 4e.

So I drew a conclusion that 4e didn't do hack and slash very well. It seemed reasonable because getting two combats done in 4e in a 4 hour gaming session was a good night. I magine with slow combats any module that had lots of combats would be very slow. I've also heard other pro-4e people talk about writing modules for 4e in the "right" way. I'm assuming that the traditional way was not the "right" way for 4e.

I was responding to the fact that someone hated against the giants for 4e. I haven't played that module in 4e. I did play it in 1e. It was mostly hack and slash. Flavorful and fun but still basically hack and slash. Then a few other people chimned in and said other modules that seem hack in slash to me were no good in 4e.

So I drew a conclusion that 4e didn't do hack and slash very well. It seemed reasonable because getting two combats done in 4e in a 4 hour gaming session was a good night. I magine with slow combats any module that had lots of combats would be very slow. I've also heard other pro-4e people talk about writing modules for 4e in the "right" way. I'm assuming that the traditional way was not the "right" way for 4e.

So you are basing your opinion on other peoples opinions. Isn't that an assumption? Don't assumptions do something to u and me?

I'd judge for yourself. I occasionally throw a dungeon crawl in where the goal of the adventure is to 'clear out' the monsters.

In general 4E published adventures are just really bad because the writers didn't know how the system worked. It has nothing to do with the type of adventure, whether it is a dungeon crawl or not. they were just badly made because WotC doesn't understand what a loss leader is and why they are good for business.

If anyone has any questions about loss leaders I'll be happy to explain...

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

I was responding to the fact that someone hated against the giants for 4e. I haven't played that module in 4e. I did play it in 1e. It was mostly hack and slash. Flavorful and fun but still basically hack and slash. Then a few other people chimned in and said other modules that seem hack in slash to me were no good in 4e.

So I drew a conclusion that 4e didn't do hack and slash very well. It seemed reasonable because getting two combats done in 4e in a 4 hour gaming session was a good night. I magine with slow combats any module that had lots of combats would be very slow. I've also heard other pro-4e people talk about writing modules for 4e in the "right" way. I'm assuming that the traditional way was not the "right" way for 4e.

So you are basing your opinion on other peoples opinions. Isn't that an assumption? Don't assumptions do something to u and me?

I'd judge for yourself. I occasionally throw a dungeon crawl in where the goal of the adventure is to 'clear out' the monsters.

In general 4E published adventures are just really bad because the writers didn't know how the system worked. It has nothing to do with the type of adventure, whether it is a dungeon crawl or not. they were just badly made because WotC doesn't understand what a loss leader is and why they are good for business.

If anyone has any questions about loss leaders I'll be happy to explain...

Oh I tried some dungeons in 4e. The game failed in an epic way for my group but I never narrowed down the complaint to say that 4e didn't do dungeons well. It didn't do anything well for me. I was trying to figure out why 4e would be good for some people but not when those same people did hack and slash dungeons. So I put forth some theories. For me I didn't like the system from the ground up so I admit I don't see why it's liked at all. But I was trying to see it from their view.

A night's sleep in 2E/3E: You get between some and all of your spells back (depending on how much time you have to memorize spells, and how high level you are, and whether you're in 2e or 3e), you get back a miniscule amount of hit points relative to your pool. Most of your magic items do not recharge on a daily basis, they're consumable with a flat number of uses ever.

A night's sleep in 4E: Everything returns to absolute full. All hit points are restored, all spells are restored, 99% of magic item powers recharge.

Over the course of a five-day dungeon crawl, in editions prior to 4E, you are extremely likely to be at less than 100% capacity on days 2, 3, 4, and 5. Almost guaranteed, in fact, and that is especially true on days 4 and 5. Over the course of a five-day dungeon crawl in 4E, you are at 100% capacity every single day.

Whether or not it is necessary to expend your resources early or late, the knowledge that they will return or that they might not return informs your play. 4E loses the strategic resource management game by removing the need to manage resources, as they all come back after an extended rest. Some people prefer this, and there's nothing wrong with that; some people hate it, and that's also a perfectly valid opinion.

The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

Or it is unless you decide its not... atleast in 4e if I want to decide a long rest is a week or is gained at a magical pool after a few sips, either way no given class is either harmed or aided to any differing degree.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

A night's sleep in 2E/3E: You get between some and all of your spells back (depending on how much time you have to memorize spells, and how high level you are, and whether you're in 2e or 3e), you get back a miniscule amount of hit points relative to your pool. Most of your magic items do not recharge on a daily basis, they're consumable with a flat number of uses ever.

A night's sleep in 4E: Everything returns to absolute full. All hit points are restored, all spells are restored, 99% of magic item powers recharge.

Over the course of a five-day dungeon crawl, in editions prior to 4E, you are extremely likely to be at less than 100% capacity on days 2, 3, 4, and 5. Almost guaranteed, in fact, and that is especially true on days 4 and 5. Over the course of a five-day dungeon crawl in 4E, you are at 100% capacity every single day.

Whether or not it is necessary to expend your resources early or late, the knowledge that they will return or that they might not return informs your play. 4E loses the strategic resource management game by removing the need to manage resources, as they all come back after an extended rest. Some people prefer this, and there's nothing wrong with that; some people hate it, and that's also a perfectly valid opinion.

I just read this and what some other posters have said and I think you are onto something here.

A night's sleep in 2E/3E: You get between some and all of your spells back

Ie spell casters get most or all of there long term resources back... and martial types get a pittance?

Not really, as all classes might potentially have reduced hp. So there is a continual balance between saving resources for future encounters that day and clerics potentially having some extra resources to spend healing at the end of the day. And your pool of magical items might have decreased with the use of consumables. It's a very different dynamic than everything resetting.